For your information:
In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made an
a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. I
spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it
relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it
becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict IETF
activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large
organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF
activities from the patent application management process.
Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the problem
area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit security
model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong preference for
"ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR") when a tradeoff
has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope and field of
application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as innovation enhances
the networking technology.
Please note that I am not well aware of the detailed procedural and
institutional arrangements that implement RFC3979, before the appeal
process can correct deviations. While I was participating in the above
matter, I chose not to rely on the appeal process, perhaps because it
wasn't clear to me how things should have gone in the first place.
P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr wg charter;
perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: thierry.moreau at connotech.com
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg